Legal Junkies Forums

#1 Community for Legal Questions and Answers

Go Back   Legal Junkies Forums > OTHER LEGAL ISSUES > Miscellaneous Topics > Coffee shops lawsuits

Register FAQ Tags Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Layout


Thread: Coffee shops lawsuits Reply to Thread

Your Username: Click here to log in
Random question to prevent spam. Must answer.
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options
Rate Thread
If you like, you can add a score for this thread.

Topic Review (Newest First)

03-30-2018 04:06 AM
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits


MARCH 30, 2018

!LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles judge has determined that coffee companies in CA must carry an ominous cancer warning label because of a chemical produced in the roasting process.

Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies failed to show that benefits from drinking coffee outweighed any risks. He ruled in an earlier phase of trial that companies hadn’t shown the threat from the chemical was insignificant.
03-23-2018 08:50 AM
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits

Nobody is gonna give up their coffee.
This too will pass!
03-22-2018 11:07 AM
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits


Now we can't drink our Starbucks either!

At least we can sue 'em.
03-04-2018 04:16 PM
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits

Originally Posted by adjusterjack View Post
Blatant spam - advertising an attorney. Post has been reported.

I agree and I reported it too. My guess is nothing will be done about it. This place is like the wild west, anything goes.
03-04-2018 12:14 AM
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits

Blatant spam - advertising an attorney. Post has been reported.
03-03-2018 08:17 PM
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits

What next will these lawyers dream up so they can sue.
02-21-2018 09:22 AM
dana 386
Re: Coffee shops lawsuits

If they start closing those shops I will never get through the day.

Isn't that going a little too far?
02-06-2018 09:13 PM
Mr. Questionman
Coffee shops lawsuits

CALIFORNIA -- Under the state’s Proposition 65, businesses are required to notify customers if their products contain any of the 65 chemicals, including acrylamide (a possibly cancer-causing chemical that’s produced when coffee beans are roasted), that are linked with cancer, birth defects or other reproductive issues. Because cafes do not post carcinogen warnings, the lawsuit maintains, they are in violation of this policy.

Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by voters as Proposition 65 in 1986, private citizens, advocacy groups and attorneys can sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties.
Public interest group, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, or CERT, sued 70 companies, claiming the state’s Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on anything that contains materials that cause cancer, should apply to coffee.

CERT lawyer Raphael Metzger argued in court this week that the benefits of coffee are “just a bunch of hypotheses” and that Californians have been exposed to “really high levels of a carcinogen” by drinking coffee, according to Law360.

Others say that this suit and similar ones are being pushed by increasingly aggressive lawyers.

The Metzger Law Group
The Metzger Law Group is a boutique firm whose practice is concentrated on the litigation of toxic tort and environmental exposure cases in the State of California. It is the only law firm in California that is devoted exclusively to the litigation of toxic injuries other than asbestos-related diseases.

Contact Information
401 E Ocean Blvd, Ste 800
Long Beach, California
Call +1 562-437-4499

California Proposition 65 (1986)
Proposition 65 (formally titled "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986") is a California law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%-37% vote. Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that may cause cancer and birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, for example in consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures.

Acrylamide Litigation
Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) v. McDonald’s and Burger King. In 2002, the Metzger Law Group filed the first Proposition 65 case regarding acrylamide on behalf of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics to require fast food companies such as McDonald’s and Burger King to warn consumers of the acrylamide hazard in french fries. Eventually the California Attorney General joined the suit and the Metzger Law Group co-litigated the case with the Attorney General. More:

Discussion on YouTube
Coffee in California may come with a warning

Acrylamide - Are Coffee Businesses Going To Get Sued?

Only in California? Lawsuit seeks cancer warnings on coffee

Will California label coffee a cancer risk

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer. Copyright 2009-2019 by